K. Sreevani v. K.Nagendra Kumar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly the appeal is allowed granting decree of
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 28
Judgment
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2154 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per AM.J.) The appellant/wife filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aggrieved by the order dated
31.10.2003 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, dismissed OP.No. 34 of 2002 filed by her under Section 13(1)(1a) thereof seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between her and the respondent- husband. Numerous grounds were raised before the Family Court seeking divorce. The lower Court after perusing the entire material and evidence made available on record by both sides, dismissed the aforesaid petition filed by the appellant-wife seeking decree of divorce respondent-husband. When the present appeal was taken up for hearing on 25.7.2012, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent-husband has agreed to give divorce to the appellant-wife. On such submission, this Court directed for appearance of both parties viz., appellant-wife and respondent-husband, in person on the next date of hearing on 31.7.2012. Today, i.e. 31.7.2012, the appeal came up for adjudication before this Court.
Though this Court ordered appearance of both the parties in person through docket order dated 25.7.2012, the appellant-wife is not present. However, the respondent-husband appeared in person before this Court and submitted an affidavit, wherein it has been averred that he has no objection if this Court grants a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between him (respondent-husband) and the appellant-wife. Along with the aforesaid sworn in affidavit, the respondent-husband has also placed before this Court the xerox copies of PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department and Driving Licence in proof of his identity. We perused the same with reference to the originals th e re o f. We thoroughly examined him as averments made in his affidavit . He vehemently stated that he has no objection if this Court grants a decree of divorce to the appellant-wife. It is well settled that in appropriate cases the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the subsequent events and grant relief to the parties accordingly.
Operative part
If by so doing it can shorten the litigation and best attain the ends of justice, such power may be exercised even by the Court of appeal as an appeal is only in the nature of rehearing of the case. In that view of the matter, in the case on hand, in as much as the respondent-husband has consented for grant of decree of divorce by this court thereby dissolving the marriage in between him (respondent-husband) and the appellant-wife without imposing any conditions in regard thereto, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized on 26.06.1997 in between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband. Accordingly the appeal is allowed granting decree of divorce to the appellant-wife. Henceforth, the appellant- Smt.K.Sreevani and the respondent-K.Nagendra Kumar shall cease to have the relationship of wife and husband. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA -------------------------------------- JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 31ST JULY, 2012. YVL/Msnro
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the appeal is allowed granting decree of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 28.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Jul 2012. The bench was ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, G KRISHNA MOHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.